Texas warns of abortion/cerebral palsy link
Should they provide this warning in all 50 states?
The state of Texas is now informing women considering an abortion that the procedure boosts the risk of delivering a future baby with cerebral palsy.According to the Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition in Vancouver, Canada, Texas is the first state in the nation to officially make such a warning.
A state law, the Woman's Right to Know Act, requires all doctors to make available certain information to women contemplating an abortion. Included is the booklet "A Woman's Right to Know," published by the Texas Department of Health, which contains the warning about cerebral palsy and other diseases for which premature babies are at high risk.
"Some large studies have reported a doubling of the risk of premature birth in later pregnancy if a woman has had two induced abortions," the booklet reads. "The same studies report an 800 percent increase in the risk of extremely early premature births for a woman who has experienced four or more induced abortions. Very premature babies, who have the highest risk of death, also have the highest risk for lasting disabilities, such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, lung and gastrointestinal problems, and vision and hearing loss."
Cerebral palsy is caused by damage to one or more specific areas of the brain, usually occurring during fetal development or during infancy. It affects movement and posture.
The Texas booklet also mentions the established link between abortion and breast cancer:
"Your chances of getting breast cancer are affected by your pregnancy history. If you have carried a pregnancy to term as a young woman, you may be less likely to get breast cancer in the future. However, you do not get the same protective effect if your pregnancy is ended by an abortion. The risk may be higher if your first pregnancy is aborted."
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
Let''s see; key parts of this quote:
the established link between abortion and breast cancer
Ah, my ears (eyes, actually) perk up as I have not heard of this established link before.
If you have carried a pregnancy to term as a young woman, you may be less likely to get breast cancer in the future.
Hmm... yes, I''ve heard this previously. Kind of an interesting natural incentive to be a mother.
However, you do not get the same protective effect if your pregnancy is ended by an abortion. The risk may be higher if your first pregnancy is aborted
Huh? Wait... let''s review, in logical order:
1) having a child seems to offer a sort of ""buffer"" making it less likely that a woman will have breast cancer later in life
2) woman who has an abortion doesn''t have that protective buffer, as she hasn''t actually had a child.
3) This establishes a link wherein abortion leads to increased risk of breast cancer?
Whuh? By that logic, staying single and never getting pregnant also increases a risk of getting breast cancer!
BY ALL THAT IS HOLY AND RIGHT IN THIS WORLD, ALL WOMEN MUST HAVE BABIES NOW!
...okay, I''ll stop being so remarkably sarcastic now. Seriously though, this is no more of an established link between abortion and breast cancer than taking a bath in the winter and catching pneumonia. All that''s established here is that having a child when you''re young offers a beneficial side effect of providing a buffer that may make you less likely to get breast cancer later.
It doesn''t state that your odds of getting breast cancer are any higher due to having an abortion than to never getting pregnant in the first place. Thus, no, that doesn''t constitute ""an established link between abortion and breast cancer.""
You know, I''m against abortions being the ""easy alternative"" to carrying a child to term. I personally think that abortions are an extreme measure (as there is an established link between abortion and mental health issues like depression) that should only be taken if necessary.
But I get sick of all these efforts to spin every possible medical malady to be the result of abortions. It''s ridiculous, especially when a layperson like me can so easily refute such claims.
Just like the first part of this article. It''s not the abortion that increases the risk of cerebral palsy, it''s the premature birth that does so. So while abortion leads to higher risk of premature birth, I see nothing here that says that babies prematurely born due to abortions are any more likely to develop cerebral palsy than babies prematurely born for other reasons.
Now, establish that and we can claim a direct link. This whole statement that you quoted is misleading spin, that''s all.
Again, this isn''t coming from some hyper-pro-choice activist, this is coming from someone who probably mostly agrees with you on the issue. This kind of stuff just hurts our cause.
The basic biology underlying the Abortion/Breast cancer link boils down to the fact that breast cancer is linked to reproductive hormones, particularly estrogen. At conception, a woman''s estrogen levels increase hundreds of times above normal – 2,000 percent by the end of the first trimester. That hormone surge leads to the growth of ""undifferentiated"" cells in the breast as the body prepares to produce milk for the coming baby.
Undifferentiated cells are vulnerable to the effects of carcinogens, which can give rise to cancerous tumors later in life. In the final weeks of a full-term pregnancy, those cells are ""terminally differentiated"" through a still largely unknown process and are ready to produce milk. Differentiated cells are not as vulnerable to carcinogens.
However, should a pregnancy be terminated prior to cell differentiation, the woman is left with abnormally high numbers of undifferentiated cells, therefore increasing her risk of developing breast cancer.
Spontaneous abortions, or miscarriages, are not generally associated with increased risk, since they generally occur due to insufficient estrogen hormones to begin with.
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
These quotes are from a CNN article which is interestingly titled: ""Experts divided over abortion, breast cancer link"". I say interesting, because every study cited in the article shows a link.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
My wife brought up a good point. It''s very likely, she seems to think, that a person who has 2 and particularly 4 abortions - where the real scare tactics meat of this study grabs headlines - is much less likely to be involved in the good prenatal care necessary to prevent things like CP, mental retardation, and strong physical development. A string of abortions often does indicate a person who lacks responsibility, and isn''t representative of the great plurality of women who have one abortion that leads to, that''s right, pretty much no long term problems. Interesting that a ''right to know'' law only provides politically slanted statistics, without providing the full range of possible causes for that statistic, namely leaving the reader in the distinctly unknown question of causality. In this great enthusiasm to educate the public, the information as presented fails to actually become involved in anything but the surface statistics that certainly don''t tell the full or accurate story. And, as we see here, people are anxious to jump to their own conclusions. Note: I''m only taking issue here with the phrasing and ambiguity of the pamphlet.
Let''s look at this reasonably for a moment. It''s pretty widely established that cerebral palsy and mental retardation in infants is most often caused by a failure of proper brain development. Some of the most widely known preventable causes - i.e. not abortion - are drug and alcohol use during pregnancy. Isn''t it far more likely that the type of person who would use drugs, alcohol, or not take proper physical care of a fetus - be that by not taking prenatal vitamins to something much more dramatic or physically dangerous - might very well be the same type of person to have the sort of regular unprotected sex that would need 4 abortions in the first place.
Now, down to the crux of the question. If abortions were not legal, would that person be any less likely to have a baby without CP? Don''t bother answering, because it''s a rhetorical and obvious, no. Further, would they be any less likely to have an abortion anyway? Again, rhetorical no. And finally, is this person who has 4 abortions the person you want to see raising children?
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Well, that additional information alters things. With that information, the alleged link between abortion and higher risk for breast cancer is quite a bit more substantial.
However, some of the additional data that Ral mentioned shows that this is still in contention depending upon which study you read. One indicates that the link is related to both abortions and miscarriages, and the other seems to put the weight more heavily on abortion.
However, regardless of whether the link is due to just abortions or also to miscarriages, that is indicative that carrying the child to term is a more healthy option than either a miscarriage or an abortion.
I do agree with Elysium, too, that the ""right to know"" act is largely used as an excuse to push pro-life propoganda on women considering abortions. I say propoganda because so many of the ""facts"" are spurious at best.
Again, keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is against having abortions being too convenient an alternative. I am also, however, against outlawing abortions entirely, as there are many cases where there is a defensible reason for having one.
What studies? Where are the results? How large? This stuff is useless without the underlying data.
From Yahoo / Reuters
I assume you guys will find this highly doubtful. After all, women who smoke are likely not going to take care of themselves in other ways that would prevent them from getting cancer...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Smoking is a little different than four abortions Ral, bit of a leap there. But then I think you''re smart enough to already know that which means I''ve fallen into some sort of trap.
Nooooooooo!
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
Yeah, I hope there was some subtle meaning we all missed, because if that''s all you got ....
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
How is smoking different?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
In every conceivable fashion. You''re going to have to drum up something better than ''smoking indicates the same level of responsibility as having four or more abortions'' before we get back into it.
On the upside, it''s nice to see you have so much respect for women who have an excessive number of abortions. I would have thought you''d consider them obviously irresponsible, but I see instead you lump them in with the tens of millions of adults who have smoked.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Well with scientific evidence like that, how can I argue?
Seriously, how is it different? You seem to be making a lot of ""it''s so obvious, I don''t have to explain it"" arguments today. Well, it''s not obvious to me - maybe you''re assuming things which shouldn''t be assumed...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
You''re starting to sound like Rat Boy there Ral, asking question after question. Rather than trying to lead Elysium into some sort of debate trap why don''t you just tell us why it''s not different.
Certis beat me to it. - Elysium
technically it was just asking one question twice. I''m also not really sure how asking why him to explain a statement he freely made is ""leading him into a debate trap"", but ok.
When it comes to breast cancer, in both the case of abortion and smoking, you have studies which repeatedly show correlation, as I posted above. For both smoking and abortion, there are scientific reasons that would also explain causation - in smoking''s case, it is our understanding of how carcinogens act on cells, and JMJ explains above the mechanism which explains this link for abortion.
So you have correlation and a reasonable explanation for causation.
So I ask again, how is smoking different than abortion when determining whether it contributes negatively to conditions like cancer or even cerebral palsy?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
JMJ explained the link between Breast Cancer and abortion. I never refuted that link. I''m not a physician so I can''t really speak to that, so I wasn''t arguing that point. JMJ said nothing about the questionable claim of the direct link between abortion and Cerebral Palsy.
But, let''s try this. Start with the original statement in the pamphlet.
And then you ask:
Now, I''ll go find a study which scientifically indicates that smoking causes cerebral palsy in infants, and you find a study that says abortions cause cerebral palsy in infants.
It seems to me that you''ll have a harder time, considering the pamphlet only mentions a correlation and has no evidence of causality.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
See Ral, that study actually included DATA. Imagine that! It presented numbers, time frames, sources, who did the study, how. The results are actually quantifiable by someone reading the article.
Now if the author of the article in the original post had that information available, why would they not include it in the article?
Because journalists are lazy. It took me about 5 minutes to find a sampling of the studies.
There''s your large studies and correlation. Here''s your causation:
So we have correlation and causation between abortion and premature birth, and premature birth is a leading cause of cerebral palsy...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Lemme see if I can break this down.
JMJ posts a study showing a higher incidence of PMB in women who have had four abortions.
Elysium says, Yeah ok, but the set of women who have had 4 abortions and experience PMB has gotta be mapping very closely to the set of women who are going to be likely to experience PMB or birth defects anyway. Because having 4 abortions is indicative of a certain lack of good judgement, a person with this kind of character would be likelier to do things like drink or do drugs while pregant, and therefore is at higher risk of experiencing PMB even if they had never had an abortion.
Ral then somehow equated what Elysium said with questioning the link between abortion and CP, way to exercise your reading comprehension there Ral. He then proceeded to equate the set of women who''ve had 4 abortions with the set of women who smoke in an effort to rebuff the non-existent challenge, which Certis and Elysium properly called into question.
You can''t even really compare the two studies very easily anyway. One is saying that 4 abortions is the magic number at which one becomes more likely to experience PMB. The other says that women who smoke are more likely to get breast cancer than women who don''t smoke, or have smoked in the past but stopped.
The last part is the key, there is no magic number. The act of smoking itself causes the higher probability, not the number of cigarettes smoked.
Can we move on now?
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
Nice personal attack - beats adding to the conversation, right? Speaking of reading comprehension...
Actually he didn''t. He didn''t post a study at all, and the article he did post indicated an increased risk of premature births from abortion in general, not just for women who have had four.
Elysium did question the link between abortion and CP, by trying to attribute that link to other causes:
No, the point of my question was to find out why abortion as a contributor to conditions like CP is immediately challenged, while smoking never is. My question was indeed called into question (the first thing you''ve gotten right in your attampt to ""break it down""), but never addressed. Also, I''m not sure what non-existent challenge you are imagining I imagined...my question wasn''t a response to any post in particular.
Nope. From JMJ''s first post in the thread:
I now assume you were questioning my lack of reading comprehension in the spirit of ""it takes one to know one"".
Really? The incidence of cancer is the same in people who smoke one cigarette as it is in those who smoke a pack a day for 20 years? Someone should call the surgeon general and get that warning label revised immediately.
If this is going to be representative of your contribution, yes, I wish you would...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I wish you''d just said that to begin with, but I think my response would have been that the weight of evidence regarding smoking is much greater and scientifically reproduced. In other words, it''s gotten a lot more look over the years. And, of course, when the claims about smoking were originally introduced they were every bit as vehemently questioned.
All that said, you''ve brought back some compelling evidence to connect your dots. I don''t claim to fully understand the nuances of the post, what with my liberal arts non-medical background, but it does appear to scientifically support causation. I''d like to see research continue on the topic.
Still, wouldn''t have been much easier if you''d just said all that to begin with?
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Ok my bad on this one, I didn''t make a distinction between the article JMJ posted and the pdf link you posted.
No, he wasn''t saying that he didn''t believe the study was correct. He said that warning people about the link based on the study fails to consider all the causes. If a woman has had 1 or more abortions and gets pregnant again and is given the warning, she might assume that if she does not go thru with the latest abortion, she will be less likely to experience PMB or XPMB. However she''s probably not really at any less risk, because someone who''s going to have multiple abortions would probably put a fetus at risk just by her lifestyle.
Nice mischaracterization. I was contrasting the first link you posted, which did posit 2 and 4 previous abortions as causing higher rates of PMB and XPMB respectively, to the article about smoking and breast cancer you posted, which contains:
This whole thread was supposed to be about issuing warnings, well cigarettes already have warnings about cancer. Someone who quits smoking because they saw a warning on the box is now, according to your second link, much less likely to get breast cancer than if they were still smoking. It''s doubtful that someone who is coming in for multiple abortions and sees the warning about a link to CP and then changes her mind is going to be any less likely to experience PMB or defects.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
I''ll let him speak for himself, but this quote seems to indicate to me that he was indeed addressing the study:
Not according to every study linked here. Based on the research, having an abortion increases your chance of premature birth by 50%, and multiple abortions (the situation you are talking about) increase your chances manyfold. A far cry from your assertion that they won''t be ""any less likely"" of having children who are premature or suffer conditions from prematurity if they don''t get the abortions.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Again, I''m not disputing the validity of the studies, (except that it was 2 abortions is 50% higher likelihood, not one). But to be scientifically rigorous, the studies must be controlled so that the incidence of abortion is the only changing factor, any other factors either must remain constant or must be shown to not influence the outcome.
However in the real world it doesn''t work that way, the people having multiple abortions probably aren''t living healthy. This means their babies are going to be at risk from many factors above and beyond number of previous abortions.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
um...
There was one table that only showed a 35% increased risk, but the other numbers indicated 50% or higher.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Umm, you quoted that one earlier, it comes from the first article, so I referenced it. You''re only arguing with yourself by posting that other data.
That''s a good question. They might not be, however for the ones living an unhealthy lifestyle, the probability of their having defective births may already be higher than that of multiple abortions. I don''t have numbers, but I''d speculate that someone doing crack while pregnant has more than an 800% chance of having birth defects.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
That would be a great point, Ockham, except for the fact that doubling the risk would be a 100% greater risk, not 50% - which is what I stated is the increased risk after one abortion.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
*commits seppuku*
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley
Completely unnecessary. However, instead of you commiting ritual suicide, I''ll take you refraining from leaping into threads with no other intention other than to attack me.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Well it wasn''t actually meant for that, I honestly started with the intention of clearing up what I saw as a miscommunication which had been causing the thread to drift.
I guess I just couldn''t resist in the end, it''s like throwing chum in the water. And typically I end up like Robert Shaw.
And with that this thread has jumped the proverbial shark.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. "
- Aldous Huxley